Star Trek TNG Remastered? - Page 10

Tomalak · June 20 2009, 10:58 PM

The model is great, but you could never appreciate it fully on television. Generations was a revelation in that respect.

It's Probert's design that I love, not the model itself (and not the four footer either).

FalTorPan · June 20 2009, 11:09 PM

Tomalak wrote:

The model is great, but you could never appreciate it fully on television. Generations was a revelation in that respect.

It's Probert's design that I love, not the model itself (and not the four footer either).

I agree. I hate the four-foot miniature. The six-footer is much better. Having said that, I'm sure that a far superior rendering of Probert's design could be made -- whether a CGI model or a physical model.

GalaxyX · June 20 2009, 11:14 PM

I agree. I hate the four-foot miniature. The six-footer is much better. Having said that, I'm sure that a far superior rendering of Probert's design could be made -- whether a CGI model or a physical model.

Just look at Enterprise's "TATV" and it gives you an idea of what's possible.

jefferiestubes8 · June 20 2009, 11:28 PM

GalaxyX wrote:

rendering of Probert's design could be made -- whether a CGI model or a physical model.

Just look at Enterprise's "TATV" and it gives you an idea of what's possible.

see:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...7&postcount=39

with pictures

Captain Fine · June 21 2009, 04:37 AM

RAMA wrote:

An interesting post on the STNG remastering:

http://www.dvdtown.com/messageboard/topic/8274/3/0

It is quite possible to remaster TNG in HD. As previously stated it was shot on 35mm film. Re-transferring and re-editing from film is not as difficult as it sounds. Even though the series was edited on video tape care was often taken at that time to reference KeyKode (the film equivalent of timecode) either by retaining this information in the extra timecode bits on the video tape or by transfer logs which match the videotape EDL to the film negatives' KeyKode. This makes finding the shots and re-cutting them quite easy. Even if this type of match-back is not possible there are many talented online editors who can eye-match the shots (although this does consume much more time than the match-back).

Hmm sounds promising no??? Is this quote accurate/reliable?

SoM · June 22 2009, 01:07 AM

ManaByte wrote:

Personally I'd be against them replacing the ILM model in TNG with a CG Enterprise D because ILM's model is just so perfect. But there are some effects in the first two seasons that can be fixed with CG.

Like Q's net in Encounter at Farpoint?

FalTorPan wrote:

Tomalak wrote:

The model is great, but you could never appreciate it fully on television. Generations was a revelation in that respect.

It's Probert's design that I love, not the model itself (and not the four footer either).

I agree. I hate the four-foot miniature. The six-footer is much better. Having said that, I'm sure that a far superior rendering of Probert's design could be made -- whether a CGI model or a physical model.

I never actually noticed just HOW big the difference was until I saw the side-by-side at the DrexFiles.

RAMA · June 22 2009, 01:22 AM

ManaByte wrote:

RobertScorpio wrote:

Butters wrote:

I can't imagine any activity with DS9 until B5 makes an announcement on the matter.

ummmm....millions more are aksing "what is B5?"

Rob

Babylon 5. Basically DS9 didn't become a serial until King B saw that Babylon 5 was actually more popular. Then he hatched the Dominion War to complement B5's Shadow War and changed the format of the show to compete.

But B5 fans shouldn't hold their breath for a remastered version of that show. As wikipedia explains:

Mastering problems
The transfer of Babylon 5 from fullscreen to widescreen (originally for the Sci-Fi Channel; later released on DVD) created significant problems with regard to special-effects/CGI footage. Several factors complicated the process.[104]

Although originally broadcast in the standard television aspect ratio of 4:3, all live-action footage was filmed on Super 35 mm film (with a ratio of 1.65:1). The idea was that, once widescreen televisions (with an aspect ratio of 16:9 or 1.78:1) became more popular, the episodes could be easily converted into a widescreen format.

CGI shots were rendered in the 4:3 ratio, but designed so that the top and bottom of each shot could be removed to create a widescreen image without ruining the image composition.

All of the purely live-action shots were stored as high-definition digital images.

However, CGI shots, and shots combining live-action with CGI, were stored in the much lower-definition NTSC digital format. (Again, the expectation was that it would be relatively cheap in the future to recreate the CGI in widescreen.)

Over the years, the original computer-generated models, etc., have been lost, making it necessary to use the old 4:3 CGI shots.

This has resulted in several consistent flaws throughout the Babylon 5 widescreen release. In particular, quality drops significantly whenever a scene cuts from purely live-action to a shot combining live-action and CGI. This is particularly noticeable on the PAL DVDs, since CGI shots had to be converted from NTSC, as well as being blown up to fit a widescreen television. In addition, while the live-action film was originally widescreen, shots were composed for 4:3, resulting in a conspicuous tendency for actors to clump up in the middle of the screen.

JMS himself admits that B5 is dead, and Warner will never fork out the cash to re-do all of the effects in the series due to how many effects it used (the five seasons of the show used more than all seven seasons of any Trek series).

Sorry Babylon 5 was never more popular than DS9. It never came remotely near to even its worst ratings.

RAMA

RAMA · June 22 2009, 01:32 AM

I like how the CGI model keeps the detail of the smaller model (the reason they built it) but keeps the lines of the 6 footer:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=83092&page=4

I would definitely be excited for any new FX on that level or even better.

Similitude · June 22 2009, 04:00 PM

Wow @ Anyone claiming B5 was more popular than DS9.

trevanian · June 22 2009, 05:45 PM

Perhaps the poster is trying to say more popular among SF enthusiasts, which would be evidenced by how B5 cleaned up at the Hugos most years.

jefferiestubes8 · June 22 2009, 09:50 PM

on the startrek.com boards there is a thread on the same TNG series topic:

Star Trek remastered
http://boards.startrek.com/community...f=6;t=33332251

trevanian · June 22 2009, 11:19 PM

jefferiestubes8 wrote:

on the startrek.com boards there is a thread on the same TNG series topic:

Star Trek remastered
http://boards.startrek.com/community...f=6;t=33332251

That TREKBUFF guy over there really knows his shit. Any way we can get him to play on this field, or do you think he got chased away from here already by a posse of eyeball eating gushers?

Similitude · June 23 2009, 05:21 AM

Wow, I haven't posted there in forever, can't believe they have the same format after all those years.

Bertie · June 23 2009, 03:40 PM

Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.

And if you don't agree, well, its not like your existing 480-interlaced disks are going anywhere. For the rest (as the Modernists liked to say) "Make it New".

RobertScorpio · June 23 2009, 05:41 PM

Bertie wrote:

Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.

And if you don't agree, well, its not like your existing 480-interlaced disks are going anywhere. For the rest (as the Modernists liked to say) "Make it New".

Yep..I totally agree. I am from that time, I grew up in the late 60s and 70s. I have a bose sound-system in my car, and it plays both CDS and flashdrives. Anyone who thinks the sound of vinly records, and those old stereo systems, can compare to a Bose, or other modern systems, is just having a coke-induced memory..I know..I've had them!

Rob

June 20 2009, 10:58 PM	#136
Tomalak Vice Admiral Location: Liverpool	Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered? The model is great, but you could never appreciate it fully on television. Generations was a revelation in that respect. It's Probert's design that I love, not the model itself (and not the four footer either).

June 22 2009, 01:32 AM	#143
RAMA Vice Admiral Location: NJ, USA	Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered? I like how the CGI model keeps the detail of the smaller model (the reason they built it) but keeps the lines of the 6 footer: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=83092&page=4 I would definitely be excited for any new FX on that level or even better. __________________ “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”—Stephen R. Covey

June 22 2009, 04:00 PM	#144
Similitude Rear Admiral Location: Doctor!	Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered? Wow @ Anyone claiming B5 was more popular than DS9.

June 22 2009, 05:45 PM	#145
trevanian Rear Admiral	Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered? Perhaps the poster is trying to say more popular among SF enthusiasts, which would be evidenced by how B5 cleaned up at the Hugos most years.

June 22 2009, 09:50 PM	#146
jefferiestubes8 Commodore Location: New York City	Star Trek TNG Remastered? on the startrek.com boards there is a thread on the same TNG series topic: Star Trek remastered http://boards.startrek.com/community...f=6;t=33332251

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

June 23 2009, 05:21 AM	#148
Similitude Rear Admiral Location: Doctor!	Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered? Wow, I haven't posted there in forever, can't believe they have the same format after all those years.

June 23 2009, 03:40 PM	#149
Bertie Lieutenant Commander	Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered? Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now. And if you don't agree, well, its not like your existing 480-interlaced disks are going anywhere. For the rest (as the Modernists liked to say) "Make it New".